donald wrote:
> Jim Granville wrote:
> 
>> AVR is too similar to 8051, 
> 
> 
> Whoo here !!!
> 
> AVR is similar to 8051 !!??
> 
> What does this mean ??!!
> 
> The 8051 had many different memory segments.
> 
> The AVR is a flat memory architecture.
> ( IO registers and memory are in the same memory space )
> 
> Why do you think the AVR and 8051 have simular architecture ??

The 'too similar', is in application footprints.

When you write in a HLL the core becomes "don't care", so
things like package sizes, Code size, RAM, MHz, peripherals
matter. - quite often, these select the device, NOT the core.

In the processor space, both the AVR an 80c51 have broadly similar 
performance, and offerings
8-100 pins, 1K-128K+

- if anything, the 8051 trumps the AVR if you need raw MHZ, (esp at low 
Vcc) or need high performance Analog (or even guaranteed analog specs), 
or Multisource.

80c51 has better interrupt structures : priorities, and register bank
switching, and also has atomic boolean access, and true BIT variables.
It was designed as a microcontroller.

So if you already use 80c51, don't bother look at AVR, look at AVR32 
etc, for larger packages.

If you need lower pin counts, look at Silabs, Atmel, Winbond, NXP,
CoreRiver (etc) and stay with 80c51 core.

-jg

Jim Granville wrote:

> AVR is too similar to 8051, 

Whoo here !!!

AVR is similar to 8051 !!??

What does this mean ??!!

The 8051 had many different memory segments.

The AVR is a flat memory architecture.
( IO registers and memory are in the same memory space )

Why do you think the AVR and 8051 have simular architecture ??


donald

Michael wrote:

> On Nov 28, 6:14 pm, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
> 
>>Then you definitely should switch to AVR.  The free tools for
>>AVR are much better.  The gcc port for AVR is definitely
>>production quality, and AVR-Studio from AVR is free.
> 
> 
> I agree - and I've been telling my bosses that since I started working
> here. So far, I have been ignored, thus I am stuck with finding a new
> compiler.

A new compiler is WAY cheaper than NEW HW, and having to support TWO
processor variants.
AVR is too similar to 8051, to make it worthwhile moving if you have
lines of code, and boards already invested.

For new clean-sheet designs, (litte in common with present ones)
  look at the better 32 bit cores :
AVR32 / PIC32 / ARM7 / ARM9 / Cortex M3 / Coldfire V1 / Z16F,
or something japanese ....

-jg

On 2007-11-29, Michael <nleahcim@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:14 pm, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Then you definitely should switch to AVR.  The free tools for
>> AVR are much better.  The gcc port for AVR is definitely
>> production quality, and AVR-Studio from AVR is free.
>
> I agree - and I've been telling my bosses that since I started working
> here. So far, I have been ignored, thus I am stuck with finding a new
> compiler.

When in doubt, write one!

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! The entire CHINESE
                                  at               WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM all
                               visi.com            share ONE personality --
                                                   and have since BIRTH!!

On Nov 28, 6:14 pm, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> Then you definitely should switch to AVR.  The free tools for
> AVR are much better.  The gcc port for AVR is definitely
> production quality, and AVR-Studio from AVR is free.

I agree - and I've been telling my bosses that since I started working
here. So far, I have been ignored, thus I am stuck with finding a new
compiler.

-Michael

ghelbig@lycos.com wrote:
> For $3, I can get and ARM chip with more memory than the
> 8051 can address, and a bunch of cool peripherals; why
> would I want to use that dinosaur?

One reason I can think of is because the uC with the cool
peripherals may not have a second source. So far I have
not needed to redesign something because of a chip no
longer being available.

Michael wrote:
> Hi there - I am stuck developing code for 8051 uCs. We have been using
> the Dunfield compiler, but it looks like we are going to be moving
> towards a more complete compiler. I have been using the 1K demo of
> Keil, and it seems to be decent. I've run into a bug or two, but no
> deal breakers just yet. I've used IAR's Embedded Workbench for ARMs,
> but have yet to play around with their 8051 tools. There also seem to
> be a number of others out there, including the free SDCC. I will be
> developing code for Silicon Labs 8051s, if that matters.
> 
> Any opinions on which are the better compilers? They all seem to be
> priced in the same area (besides a couple really low end ones, like
> Dunfield) - so mostly I'm curious about features, bugs, support, etc.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Michael

Go with the Keil, been using it for years.. works well and has very few
bugs..

On Nov 29, 9:35 am, Neil <NeilKu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 12:31 pm, ghel...@lycos.com wrote:
> >> I have a number of opinions about 8051 compilers.
>
> >> If the project is large enough to need a C compiler, the 8051 probably
> >> isn't the right choice.  This cockroach of microprocessors has been
> >> around for 30 years, and just won't die.  For $3, I can get and ARM
> >> chip with more memory than the 8051 can address, and a bunch of cool
> >> peripherals; why would I want to use that dinosaur?
>
> > I agree completely. Unfortunately my hands are tied. I'm pushing to
> > switch over to Atmel AVRs, but since I am just a lowly engineer who
> > doesn't know anything (*cough*) I have no say in the matter. This is
> > all for code that I'm developing for new hardware, not old, mind you.
> > I've been considering just quietly doing the next board with an AVR
> > and seeing if anybody bitches.
>
> >> I've used the SDCC tools, the Intel tools, and the Keil tools for the
> >> 8051.  Getting binaries from the SDCC tool chain is a lot like herding
> >> cats.  The Intel tools give great results, but have a steep learning
> >> curve.  The Keil tools seem to be the Industry Norm, and once the few
> >> quirks present are worked out, give good results.
>
> >> No C compiler is going to produce good code for an 8051; the
> >> architecture does not work well with high-level languages.  So take
> >> what you get, and call it "good enough".
>
> > I've been using the Keil compiler and it's definitely at least OK. I
> > just talked with them and they said it'd cost me $2895 for the full
> > set of tools. IAR's toolset would set us back $2426. The Keil
> > salesperson was utterly clueless and about as helpful as a rock, while
> > the IAR salesperson was quite helpful and seemed to know what he was
> > talking about.
>
> > Can you tell me more about SDCC? I suspect I'd make my boss very happy
> > if he didn't have to fork over for IAR or Keil.
>
> > -Michael
>
> The Keil Tools are fine.  I think you can get a 4K Version with their
> Dev Kit.  You Do Not need the full Keil Compiler.  It comes with an RTOS
> and such.
> Except for the Glue code it is C who cares about the CPU.  If it runs
> the code fast enough and you can write C for an 8 Bit CPU go with it.
> I would not worry about free tools  unless the money is that tight.
>
> There was a thread about getting started with SiLab onwww.8052.comnot
> too long ago.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi,

I have been using Raisonance tools, which have a very good optimizer
(better than Keil in some cases), with a simulator that supports
banking and a nice development environmane (RIDE). They have a free
4KB version, which expands to 16KB if you register on their Web site.
And the full compiler is around $900 I think.

I think using C with an 8-bits processor make *A LOT* of sense,
especially for the 8051, which has a weird memory organisation.
Changing a variable from IDATA to XDATA is just a matter of seconds in
C, how long is it when in assembler.

And the code produced by the Raisonance Compiler is quite good. In
some cases it is better than hand-written assembler code.

Bruno

Michael schrieb:
> Any opinions on which are the better compilers? They all seem to be
> priced in the same area (besides a couple really low end ones, like
> Dunfield) - so mostly I'm curious about features, bugs, support, etc.

For professional use, Keil C seems a good choice. It comes with lot of
manuals and they have good support forums. I personally haven't used it yet.

For student and beginners use, SDCC is not a bad choice. It is not as
full featured but comes with a good manual and handles basic tasks very
well. It doesn't seem to produce the tightest code possible but it is
free and just works. Students who don't want to spend a lot of money and
who run into the limitations of the Keil C demo can'T go much wrong if
trying SDCC.

Maybe you should also ask at the http://www.8052.com/ forum? I'm sure
you will receive useful ideas and comments on this subject aswell. Make
sure to use the search function first to avoid being flamed ;)

cheers,
Matthias
-- 
Matthias Arndt <marndt@asmsoftware.de>
PGP-Key: http://www.final-memory.org/files/marndt.asc   ICQ: 40358321
>>> Jabber: simonsunnyboy@jabber.ccc.de <<<

Michael wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:31 pm, ghel...@lycos.com wrote:
>> I have a number of opinions about 8051 compilers.
>>
>> If the project is large enough to need a C compiler, the 8051 probably
>> isn't the right choice.  This cockroach of microprocessors has been
>> around for 30 years, and just won't die.  For $3, I can get and ARM
>> chip with more memory than the 8051 can address, and a bunch of cool
>> peripherals; why would I want to use that dinosaur?
> 
> I agree completely. Unfortunately my hands are tied. I'm pushing to
> switch over to Atmel AVRs, but since I am just a lowly engineer who
> doesn't know anything (*cough*) I have no say in the matter. This is
> all for code that I'm developing for new hardware, not old, mind you.
> I've been considering just quietly doing the next board with an AVR
> and seeing if anybody bitches.
> 
>> I've used the SDCC tools, the Intel tools, and the Keil tools for the
>> 8051.  Getting binaries from the SDCC tool chain is a lot like herding
>> cats.  The Intel tools give great results, but have a steep learning
>> curve.  The Keil tools seem to be the Industry Norm, and once the few
>> quirks present are worked out, give good results.
>>
>> No C compiler is going to produce good code for an 8051; the
>> architecture does not work well with high-level languages.  So take
>> what you get, and call it "good enough".
> 
> I've been using the Keil compiler and it's definitely at least OK. I
> just talked with them and they said it'd cost me $2895 for the full
> set of tools. IAR's toolset would set us back $2426. The Keil
> salesperson was utterly clueless and about as helpful as a rock, while
> the IAR salesperson was quite helpful and seemed to know what he was
> talking about.
> 
> Can you tell me more about SDCC? I suspect I'd make my boss very happy
> if he didn't have to fork over for IAR or Keil.
> 
> -Michael
The Keil Tools are fine.  I think you can get a 4K Version with their 
Dev Kit.  You Do Not need the full Keil Compiler.  It comes with an RTOS 
and such.
Except for the Glue code it is C who cares about the CPU.  If it runs 
the code fast enough and you can write C for an 8 Bit CPU go with it.
I would not worry about free tools  unless the money is that tight.

There was a thread about getting started with SiLab on www.8052.com not 
too long ago.